Types of Inner Dialogues and Functions of Self-Talk: Comparisons and Implications
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 06 March 2020
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00227
Types of Inner Dialogues and
Functions of Self-Talk: Comparisons
and Implications
Piotr K. Oleś 1* , Thomas M. Brinthaupt 2 , Rachel Dier 2 and Dominika Polak 1
1
Institute of Psychology, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland, 2 Department of Psychology, Middle
Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, United States
Intrapersonal communication occurs in several modes including inner dialogue and
self-talk. The Dialogical Self Theory (Hermans, 1996) postulates a polyphonic self that
is comprised of a multiplicity of inner voices. Internal dialogical activity implies an
exchange of thoughts or ideas between at least two so-called “I-positions” representing
specific points of view. Among the functions served by self-talk are self-criticism, self-
reinforcement, self-management, and social assessment (Brinthaupt et al., 2009). This
paper explores the relationships among different types of internal dialogues and self-
talk functions. Participants included college students from Poland (n = 181) and the
United States (n = 119) who completed two multidimensional measures of inner dialogue
and self-talk. Results indicated moderately strong relationships between inner dialogue
Edited by:
types and self-talk functions, suggesting that there is a significant overlap between the
Stefan Berti,
Johannes Gutenberg University two modes of communication. We discuss several implications of these findings for
Mainz, Germany exploring similarities and differences among varieties of intrapersonal communication.
Reviewed by:
Peter Rober, Keywords: inner dialogue, intrapersonal communication, self-talk, inner speech, identity, self-regulation
KU Leuven, Belgium
Aleksandra Kaurin,
University of Pittsburgh, United States INTRODUCTION
*Correspondence:
Piotr K. Oleś
Intrapersonal communication occurs in several modes and includes research on a wide range of
oles@kul.pl processes and behavioral domains (see this Research Topic). Two such modes are self-talk and
internal dialogue. With respect to self-talk, psychologists originally described inner and private
Specialty section: speech in the context of developmental processes including the affinity between speaking and
This article was submitted to thinking (Vygotsky, 1962). Although inner dialogues had long been recognized by philosophers
Cognitive Science, such as Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine, and by writers, poets, and other thinkers, formal
a section of the journal psychological theorizing about such phenomena was only recently introduced at the end of the
Frontiers in Psychology
20th and beginning of the 21st century (Hermans and Kempen, 1993; Markova, 2005).
Received: 19 July 2019 The possible relationship and mixing of these two phenomena occurs within theory and
Accepted: 31 January 2020
empirical research. For example, according to Kross et al. (2014), “Self-talk is a ubiquitous human
Published: 06 March 2020
phenomenon. We all have an internal monologue that we engage in from time to time” (p. 321).
Citation: How people engage in internal monologues (or dialogues) and self-talk is likely to vary. For
Oleś PK, Brinthaupt TM, Dier R
example, people might instruct themselves to “Try again” or relax themselves by saying “Don’t
and Polak D (2020) Types of Inner
Dialogues and Functions of Self-Talk:
worry.” In a different context, one might ask oneself “What can I do?” or “Are my talents and
Comparisons and Implications. knowledge enough to argue in a coming debate?”
Front. Psychol. 11:227. These examples of self-talk can also involve dialogic features. From the perspective of Dialogical
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00227 Self Theory (Hermans, 1996; Hermans and Gieser, 2012), people can take at least two points of
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 227Oleś et al. Inner Dialogues and Self-Talk
view or “I-positions” within their intrapersonal communication. The nature of the relationship between inner dialogues and
We might discuss in our minds multiple options, like a fiddler self-talk has important implications for the phenomenon
on a roof: “on the one hand . . ., but on the other hand . . .” of intrapersonal communication. We discuss some of these
Such dialogues can show even greater complexity and detail. For implications in the conclusion of the paper.
example, a man might imagine how a request for a divorce will
affect his spouse, how she would likely respond to that request, Self-Talk and Its Different Functions
whether he should reconsider based on her likely response, etc. Most approaches to studying self-talk assume that it encompasses
This kind of inner dialogue involves posing questions on behalf self-referent or self-directed speech. Research examines several
of the imagined partner and giving answers. variants of the phenomenon, including positive and negative
As the previous example suggests, an inner monologue can self-statements (Kendall et al., 1989), silent self-talk (i.e., inner
easily evolve into an internal dialogue between two subjects speech) (McCarthy-Jones and Fernyhough, 2011), and out loud
inside one’s mind—between different parts of oneself or between self-talk (i.e., private speech) (Duncan and Cheyne, 1999).
oneself and the imagined partner. In other words, there may Self-talk research has long been popular in the domains of
be qualitative and quantitative differences in the nature of clinical (e.g., Schwartz and Garamoni, 1989), sport and exercise
self-talk and internal dialogues. Self-talk appears to involve (e.g., Hardy, 2006), developmental (e.g., Diaz and Berk, 1992),
basic self-regulatory functions like self-control or self-direction educational (e.g., Deniz, 2009), and personality (e.g., Brinthaupt
(“Try again”), whereas internal dialogues involve more extended et al., 2009) psychology.
communicative functions (“When I say X, she will answer Y”). Extensive research explores how and why people talk to
In the present study, we aimed to explore the degree of overlap themselves and whether variations in self-talk content result
between these two forms of intrapersonal communication. in different effects on the speaker. Among the self-talk
For our purposes, self-talk can be defined as “self-directed functions are general self-regulation (e.g., Mischel et al., 1996;
or self-referent speech (either silent or aloud) that serves a Carver and Scheier, 1998), self-distancing (Kross et al., 2014),
variety of self-regulatory and other functions” (Brinthaupt, 2019, providing instruction and motivation (Hatzigeorgiadis et al.,
para. 7). Internal dialogical activity is defined as “engagement 2011), and self-awareness, self-evaluation, self-knowledge, and
in dialogues with imagined figures, the simulation of social self-reflection (White et al., 2015; Morin, 2018).
dialogical relationships in one’s own thoughts, and the mutual Evidence suggests that self-talk also plays a role in facilitating
confrontation of the points of view representing different a variety of cognitive processes (Langland-Hassan and Vicente,
I-positions relevant to personal and/or social identity” (Oleś and 2018) including emotion regulation (Orvell et al., 2019), coping
Puchalska-Wasyl, 2012, p. 242). with painful experiences (Kross et al., 2014, 2017), monitoring
Most definitions of self-talk and inner speech assume that, of language development and speech production (e.g., Pickering
in this form of intrapersonal communication, both sender and and Garrod, 2013), and perspective taking (e.g., Fernyhough,
recipient represent the same person (e.g., Fernyhough, 2016). 2009). Recent studies show that non-first-person self-talk can
In contrast, inner dialogical activity does not imply that. Inner promote self-distancing and adaptive self-reflection (e.g., Kross
dialogues refer to various forms of intrapersonal communication et al., 2014; White et al., 2015). Referring to oneself in the third
where different voices can represent not only the self but person (he/she/they) or by one’s name appears to promote coping
also close persons, imagined friends, lost relatives and spouses, with stressful experiences and is associated with appraising future
teachers and mentors, media stars, voices of culture, and others stressors as challenges rather than threats (Kross et al., 2014,
(Hermans, 1996). Self-talk can be just a single word, comment, 2017). This kind of self-talk is also connected to specific forms of
or command without any answer or an extended “conversation,” brain activity that constitute effortless self-control (Moser et al.,
while mutual exchange of expressions is an essence of the 2017) and emotion regulation (Orvell et al., 2019).
internal dialogue. A detailed functional view emerged from the development of
Whereas everyday self-regulation is an important feature of the Self-Talk Scale (STS) (Brinthaupt et al., 2009), which measures
self-talk (Brinthaupt et al., 2009), internal dialogical activity the self-reported frequency of different kinds of self-talk. Relying
emphasizes confrontation or integration of different points of on an initial pool of items assessing multiple situations where
view as a way to help a person understand new or strange self-talk might occur and the possible common functions served
experiences. In other words, self-talk seems to occur in reaction to by it, Brinthaupt et al. identified four broad types. The STS
or anticipation of specific events or circumstances, whereas inner includes subscales on self-criticism (i.e., situations when bad
dialogue appears to involve more reflective or contemplative things have happened to a person), self-reinforcement (i.e.,
kinds of intrapersonal communication. Furthermore, inner relating to positive events), self-management (i.e., determining
dialogues frequently involve a person’s identity (e.g., Bhatia, what one needs to do), and social-assessment (i.e., referring to
2002; Batory, 2010), whereas self-talk seems to apply to identity past, present, or future social interactions).
questions only indirectly. Research on the psychometric properties of the STS supports
In this paper, we first describe theoretical and research these four factors as well as other features of the measure
conceptions of self-talk and inner dialogical activity. We then (e.g., Brinthaupt et al., 2009, 2015; Brinthaupt and Kang, 2014).
propose possible relationships between these two forms of Additional research (Morin et al., 2018) suggests that the kinds
intrapersonal communication. Next, we report the results of a of self-talk measured by the STS are common occurrences
study that compares total and subscale scores of these constructs. in the everyday experience of this kind of intrapersonal
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 227Oleś et al. Inner Dialogues and Self-Talk
communication. Thus, one way to provide an initial assessment inner dialogues postulated by DST. Some of the dimensions of
of the relationship between the varieties of self-talk and inner this measure include identity, social, supportive, confronting,
dialogues is to utilize a measure that captures at least some of the and ruminative dialogues. The IDAS therefore permits a more
possible functions served by self-talk. thorough examination of DST concepts than the VISQ.
In summary, DST views intrapersonal communication as a
The Dialogical Self and Inner Dialogues complex process of inner dialogues. These dialogues take a wide
Bakhtin (1973) introduced the notion of the polyphonic novel variety of forms and functions that play important roles in the
with his analysis of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s literary works. That development of self and identity. However, to date, there has
analysis showed possible splitting of the self into voices that were been little research attention devoted to the relationship of these
not exactly coherent, and each of them represented relatively kinds of forms and functions to other kinds of intrapersonal
autonomous points of view. According to the Dialogical Self communication. Self-talk appears to be one kind of intrapersonal
Theory (DST) (Hermans, 1996), human consciousness functions communication that is similar to inner dialogues.
as a similar “society of mind” containing mental representations
of numerous voices of culture, family members, close friends,
significant others, and other sources. These voices can engage Possible Linkages Between Self-Talk and
in a variety of communications, including posing questions and Inner Dialogues
answers to, and having agreements and disagreements with, each As we noted earlier, the levels of focus are different for the
other (Hermans, 2003). STS and the IDAS. Internal dialogues tend to apply more to a
Assuming a multiplicity of inner voices, internal dialogical higher level, or meta-features, of intrapersonal communication,
activity specifically applies to the exchange of thoughts or ideas compared to the self-regulatory functions assessed by the
between at least two I-positions representing specific points of STS. That is, the STS measures why and when people might
view (Hermans, 1996). Research shows that inner dialogues play talk to themselves, whereas the IDAS primarily assesses the
an important role in identity construction (e.g., Bhatia, 2002; phenomenology of how people talk to themselves.
Hermans and Dimaggio, 2007; Batory, 2010), differentiating and The potential relationships among self-talk and inner
integrating the self as part of the process of self-organization (e.g., dialogues are theoretically interesting for several reasons.
Raggatt, 2012; Valsiner and Cabell, 2012), the simulation of social It is conceivable that different kinds of self-talk reflect
dialogues (e.g., Puchalska-Wasyl et al., 2008; Puchalska-Wasyl, different I-positions. For example, self-critical self-talk might
2011), and general self-reflection and insight (e.g., Markova, reveal the presence of confrontational dialogues, whereas self-
2005; Hermans and Hermans-Konopka, 2010; Rowan, 2011). managing self-talk might be more frequent when people
Developments within DST (Hermans and Hermans-Konopka, engage in integrative dialogues. Individuals reporting frequent
2010) and associated research (e.g., Oleś and Hermans, 2005; ruminative inner dialogues might also report higher levels of
Hermans and Gieser, 2012; Puchalska-Wasyl, 2016; Puchalska- self-critical self-talk.
Wasyl et al., 2018) have led to the identification of several There are also some likely differences between these two kinds
forms and functions of internal dialogical activity. For example, of intrapersonal communication. Self-talk includes a variety of
Nir (2012) distinguished contrasting (or confrontational) and non-dialogical features, such as internal monologues that reflect
integrating dialogues. Contrasting dialogues refer to the clashing observations of or commentary on one’s experiences that are not
of opposing points of view and argumentation until one of interpersonally or socially directed (e.g., Duncan and Cheyne,
them obtains an evident advantage over another. Integrating 1999; Langland-Hassan and Vicente, 2018) or simple auditory
dialogues tend toward compromising solutions or the integration rehearsals (e.g., MacKay, 1992) that do not involve more than
of opposing points of view into higher levels of abstract meanings. one I-position. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that some kinds
Puchalska-Wasyl (2010) highlighted differences between three of self-talk may be unrelated to the frequency of inner dialogues.
forms of dialogical activity: monologue (that implies an Fernyhough (2009, 2016) argues that inner speech is
interlocutor or audience), dialogue, and changing point of view. fundamentally dialogic and permits people to take perspectives
This last form refers to the polyphony described by Bakhtin on, understand, and integrate their internal and external worlds.
(1973) and Hermans (1996). While dialogue means real exchange This process includes creating representations of the inner
of ideas between two or more points of view (I-positions), experiences of other people. As such, it is reasonable to
monologue refers to one-sided communications (whether to predict that some kinds of self-talk will be positively associated
oneself or to another person) in which an answer is not expected. with certain types of inner dialogues. For example, social-
Researchers have recently engaged in efforts to measure assessing self-talk is probably similar to dialogues that include an
individual differences in inner dialogues. For example, the imagined social mirror.
Varieties of Inner Speech Questionnaire (VISQ) (McCarthy- Some research on the frequency of self-talk is relevant
Jones and Fernyhough, 2011; Alderson-Day et al., 2018) measures to theoretical conceptions of inner dialogues. For example,
different phenomenological aspects of inner speech, including Brinthaupt and Dove (2012) found that adults who reported
a factor on dialogicality (or self-talk occurring as a back-and- having had an imaginary companion in childhood reported more
forth conversation). Oleś (2009) and Oleś and Puchalska-Wasyl frequent self-talk than those who did not have one. In addition,
(2012) developed the Internal Dialogical Activity Scale (IDAS), they found that adults who grew up as only children without
which focuses specifically on the range of different kinds of siblings reported more frequent self-talk than those growing up
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 227Oleś et al. Inner Dialogues and Self-Talk
with siblings. Such childhood social experiences might play a role self-criticism, self-reinforcement, self-management, and social-
in people’s levels of comfort with, or awareness of, their self-talk as assessment. Respondents rate the STS items using a five-point
well as the nature of their inner dialogues. Other contributors to frequency scale (1 = never, 5 = very often) and using the common
the current Research Topic (e.g., Brinthaupt, 2019; Łysiak, 2019) stem “I talk to myself when.” Each subscale contains four
provide additional insights into possible relationships between items. To calculate subscale and total frequency scores, items are
internal dialogues and self-talk. summed, with higher scores indicating more frequent self-talk.
Research provides good support for the psychometric properties
Aims of the Study of the STS and the integrity of the four subscales (e.g., Brinthaupt
Our research examines two specific modes of intrapersonal et al., 2009, 2015; Brinthaupt and Kang, 2014).
communication. In particular, we explore the relationships Self-criticism pertains to self-talk about negative events (e.g.,
among functions of self-talk and types of inner dialogues in order “I should have done something differently” and “I feel ashamed
to clarify the similarities between these modes of intrapersonal of something I’ve done”). Self-reinforcement refers to self-talk
communication. Previous research has extensively studied the about positive events (e.g., “I am really happy for myself ” and
self-talk and internal dialogue types and functions measured “I want to reinforce myself for doing well”). Self-management
by the STS and IDAS-R. However, no research, to date, has assesses self-talk about features of general self-regulation (e.g., “I
examined the ways that these self-talk and internal dialogue facets am mentally exploring a possible course of action” and “I want to
relate to and overlap with each other. Brinthaupt et al. (2009) remind myself of what I need to do”). Social-assessment applies
constructed and validated the Self-Talk Scale in the United States, to self-talk about people’s future and past social interactions (e.g.,
whereas Oleś (2009) published the Internal Dialogical Activity “I try to anticipate what someone will say and how I’ll respond
Scale in Poland. In this study, we decided to compare each of to him or her” and “I want to analyze something that someone
these constructs using both United States and Polish samples. We recently said to me”).
examine the relationships among these two measures through the
use of correlational and factor analytic approaches. We are not Internal Dialogical Activity Scale-R (IDAS-R)
introducing new ways to assess intrapersonal communication; Internal Dialogical Activity Scale-R (IDAS-R). The IDAS-R
nor are we primarily interested in cross-cultural differences. is a 40-item tool aimed at measuring an overall level of
This study explores relationships among the different internal dialogical activity as well as eight different kinds of
functions of self-talk defined by the STS and the types of internal inner dialogues. The original version of the Questionnaire
dialogues identified by the IDAS. Our general expectation was (IDAS) consisted of 47 items and contained seven subscales
that individuals who report frequent levels of internal dialogical (Oleś, 2009; Oleś and Puchalska-Wasyl, 2012). Respondents
activity will also report frequent self-talk. However, the strength rate the applicability of each item using a five-point scale. In
of these relationships will depend on the specific types and the current revision of the scale, we changed the response
subscales of both kinds of intrapersonal communication. By format from the original intensity of agreement (1 = I strongly
exploring these relationships, we hoped to better clarify the disagree, 5 = I strongly agree) to a frequency scale (1 = never,
theoretical and conceptual similarities between self-talk and 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often). Additional
inner dialogues. revisions included (1) splitting two complex sentences into
simple items containing clear meanings, (2) adding four items,
(3) reformulating the wording of several items due to the new
response format, and (4) deleting one item as irrelevant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS To test the structure and psychometric properties of the IDAS-
R, we collected data from 654 Polish participants (449 women,
Participants 205 men) ranging in age from 16 to 80 years (M = 31.83,
Participants were two college student samples. The Polish sample SD = 10.93). All participants provided informed consent prior to
consisted of 181 students (117 women, 64 men), with ages completing the measure. For the exploratory factor analysis, we
ranging from 18 to 34 (M = 24.94, SD = 4.24), who attended used the least squares method for the extraction of factors, with
courses leading to a master’s degree. We drew the United States Oblimin rotation and Kaiser normalization. The results provided
sample from the university’s General Psychology research pool nine extracted factors, which explained 63% of the variance.
that was comprised of mostly freshmen and sophomores. This However, one of these factors contained low loadings, so we
sample consisted of 119 students (66 women, 51 men, two settled on eight factors for the final version explaining 61% of the
missing), with ages ranging from 18 to 29 (M = 19.18, SD = 1.86). variance. Each factor consists of five items, resulting in the final
The two samples differed significantly in age, t(297) = 13.92, 40-item version. We describe the factor scales, their associated
p < 0.001, but did not differ significantly in their gender internal consistency values, and sample items below.
proportions, X 2 (2) = 3.39, p = 0.18. Identity Dialogues refer to questions and answers concerning
identity, values, and life priorities (e.g., “Thanks to dialogues with
Measures myself, I can answer the question, ‘Who am I?’ and “Through
Self-Talk Scale (STS) internal discussions I come to certain truths about my life and
Self-Talk Scale (STS) (Brinthaupt et al., 2009). The STS myself.”). Such dialogues pertain to searching for authenticity
consists of 16 items, representing the four self-talk functions of and may precede important life choices.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 227Oleś et al. Inner Dialogues and Self-Talk
Maladaptive Dialogues are internal dialogues treated as into Polish. A different colleague then back translated the Polish
undesirable, unpleasant, or annoying (e.g., “I would prefer not STS version to English. A native English speaking team member
to carry on internal conversations” and “The conversations in my reviewed this version and indicated any areas of clarification,
mind upset me”). The content and occurrence of such dialogues confusion, and discrepancy. We then created the final Polish
imply task disturbances or avoidance behavior. version of the STS. For the IDAS-R, a team member translated
Social Dialogues are inner dialogues that reflect future and the original (Polish) version of the measure into English. A native
past conversations (e.g., “When preparing for a conversation with English-speaking team member then reviewed this version for
someone, I practice the conversation in my thoughts” and “I clarity. A team member then back translated this version into
continue past conversations with other people in my mind”). Polish and identified any discrepancies or areas of confusion.
These items capture the frequency of continuation of talk with We then implemented necessary corrections to create the final
others, preparation for conversation, finishing discussions, or English version of IDAS-R.
creating alternative conversational scenarios. The study received approval from the Institutional Review
Supportive Dialogues include intrapersonal communications Board (IRB), Middle Tennessee State University, United States.
with persons who have given support and whose closeness is Participants provided their written informed consent when the
valued (e.g., “When I cannot speak with someone in person, institution required it. They completed the main measures in
I carry on a conversation with him/her in my mind” and “I counterbalanced order individually or in small groups of 5–10
carry on discussions in my mind with the important people people. Demographic items appeared at the end of the survey.
in my life.”). Such dialogues might provide bolstering of social
bonds and help to overcome loneliness by giving support to, and
strengthening, the self. RESULTS
Spontaneous Dialogues are inner conversations that occur
spontaneously in everyday life (e.g., “I converse with myself and Descriptive statistics for both samples appear in Table 1. As
“I talk to myself ”). Such dialogues refer to the consideration of the table shows, the alpha coefficients for the STS and IDAS-R
different thoughts or opinions as well as a dialogical form of were similar across the United States and Polish samples, with
self-consciousness. comparable and acceptable values. Both samples also showed
Ruminative Dialogues consist of dialogues involving self- similar patterns in the relative frequency of the four types of
blame, mulling over failures, and recalling of sad or annoying self-talk, with self-managing self-talk most common and self-
thoughts or memories (e.g., “After failures, I blame myself in my reinforcing self-talk least common. Among the IDAS-R facets,
thoughts” and “I have conversations in my mind which confuse both samples reported relatively low levels of maladaptive and
me”). These items capture general rumination tendencies within confronting dialogues and relatively high levels of social and
one’s internal dialogues. spontaneous dialogues.
Confronting Dialogues are internal dialogues conducted Comparison of the two samples revealed that the United States
between two sides of the self, such as the “good me” and “bad students reported significantly higher scores than their Polish
me” (e.g., “I feel that I am two different people, who argue peers on the total STS [t(297) = 7.09, p < 0.001, g = 0.84] as well
with each other, each wanting something different” and “I argue as the social-assessment [t(297) = 5.71, p < 0.001, g = 0.67], self-
with that part of myself that I do not like”). Such internal reinforcement [t(297) = 4.06, p < 0.001, g = 0.48], self-criticism
disputes imply a sense of incoherence, polarization, or even [t(297) = 6.49, p < 0.001, g = 0.77], and self-management
fragmentation of the self. [t(297) = 5.40, p < 0.001, g = 0.64] STS subscales. A similar
Change of Perspective refers to changes in point of view pattern emerged for overall IDAS-R and five of its eight subscales.
in service of understanding challenging situations or searching In particular, United States students reported higher scores than
for solutions (e.g., “When I have a difficult choice, I talk the the Polish students on the total IDAS-R [t(297) = 3.33, p < 0.001,
decision over with myself from different points of view” and g = 0.39], as well as the identity [t(297) = 1.92, p < 0.05, g = 0.23],
“In my thoughts I take the perspective of someone else”). Such spontaneous [t(298) = 3.84, p < 0.001, g = 0.45], ruminative
dialogues might involve taking a fruitful or conflicted perspective [t(298) = 3.40, p < 0.001, g = 0.40], confronting [t(298) = 3.06,
of another person. p < 0.002, g = 0.36], and change of perspective [t(298) = 6.61,
For each of these subscales, summing the five items creates p < 0.001, g = 0.78] dialogues.
a total score, with higher scores indicating greater frequency of Table 2 reports the correlations among the STS and IDAS-
that kind of dialogue. It is also possible to compute an overall R measures for each sample and indicates those correlations
inner dialogue score by summing the ratings of all 40 items. that reached the 0.001 level of significance. The correspondence
In the current study, this total score, called Internal Dialogical between these two kinds of intrapersonal communication turned
Activity reflects a person’s general frequency of engagement in out to be consistently positive, with most correlations in the
internal dialogues. moderate to strong range. For the Polish sample, 36 of the 44
correlations between the STS and IDAS-R total and subscale
Procedure scores were significant. For the United States sample, 35 of
We created two parallel Polish and English language versions of 44 of these correlations were significant. In the Polish sample,
the measures. For the STS, one of the research team members significant correlations ranged between 0.24 and 0.59; in the
who speaks both Polish and English first translated the scale United States sample, significant relationships ranged between
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 227Oleś et al. Inner Dialogues and Self-Talk
TABLE 1 | Descriptive statistics for the self-talk scale and the internal dialogical activity scale—revised for United States, polish, and combined samples.
Scale United States sample (n = 119) Polish sample (n = 181) Combined sample (n = 300)
α M SD 95% CI α M SD 95% CI α M SD 95% CI
STS total score 0.88 59.97 10.98 [57.98, 61.97] 0.88 49.92 12.64 [48.06, 51.78] 0.90 53.92 12.96 [52.44, 55.40]
Social-assessment 0.70 14.86 3.42 [14.24, 15.48] 0.83 12.04 4.61 [11.36, 12.72] 0.82 13.16 4.39 [12.66, 13.66]
Self-Reinforcement 0.85 13.56 3.88 [12.86, 14.27] 0.86 11.58 4.29 [10.95, 12.21] 0.86 12.37 4.24 [11.89, 12.85]
Self-Criticism 0.83 15.13 3.79 [14.44, 15.81] 0.73 12.22 3.78 [11.67, 12.78] 0.79 13.38 4.04 [12.92, 13.84]
Self-Management 0.73 16.43 3.03 [15.88, 16.98] 0.79 14.07 4.07 [13.47, 14.67] 0.79 15.01 3.86 [14.57, 14.45]
IDAS-R total score 0.94 119.78 26.90 [114.90, 124.66] 0.95 108.59 29.45 [104.26, 112.93] 0.95 113.05 28.94 [109.75, 116.34]
Identity dialogues 0.78 15.87 4.48 [15.05, 16.68] 0.87 14.75 5.20 [13.99, 15.51] 0.841 15.19 4.94 [14.63, 15.76]
Maladaptive dialogues 0.62 11.32 3.79 [10.63, 12.01] 0.70 10.75 4.04 [10.15, 11.34] 0.681 0.97 3.94 [10.52, 11.42]
Social dialogues 0.72 17.58 4.15 [16.83, 18.33] 0.84 17.81 5.00 [17.08, 18.55] 0.80 17.72 4.68 [17.19, 18.25]
Supportive dialogues 0.81 13.82 4.72 [12.96, 14.67] 0.86 13.28 5.45 [12.48, 14.08] 0.841 3.49 5.17 [12.90, 14.08]
Spontaneous dialogues 0.79 17.13 4.34 [16.35, 17.92] 0.861 4.90 5.29 [14.12, 15.67] 0.84 15.78 5.05 [15.21, 16.36]
Ruminative dialogues 0.771 5.22 4.44 [14.41, 16.02] 0.81 13.33 4.88 [12.62, 14.05] 0.80 14.08 4.79 [13.54, 14.62]
Confronting dialogues 0.76 13.13 4.73 [12.27, 13.98] 0.831 1.35 5.03 [10.62, 12.09] 0.81 12.06 4.98 [11.49, 12.62]
Change of perspective 0.70 15.72 4.01 [14.99, 16.45] 0.79 12.36 4.50 [11.70, 13.02] 0.79 13.69 4.61 [13.17, 14.22]
TABLE 2 | Correlations between the STS and IDAS-R: results from Polish sample above the diagonal and for United States sample below the diagonal.
PL
US 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 Social-assessment 0.31* 0.37* 0.71* 0.33* 0.02 0.42* 0.46* 0.45* 0.42* 0.27* 0.39* 0.81* 0.47*
2 Self-reinforcement 0.27 0.26* 0.44* 0.37* 0.07 0.11 0.26* 0.40* 0.20 0.21 0.32* 0.67* 0.33*
3 Self-critical 0.55* 0.45* 0.44* 0.24* 0.21 0.24* 0.25* 0.35* 0.45* 0.29* 0.33* 0.67* 0.40*
4 Self-management 0.71* 0.42* 0.48* 0.41* −0.01 0.38* 0.38* 0.56* 0.41* 0.31* 0.45* 0.86* 0.50*
5 Identity dialogues 0.43* 0.32* 0.31* 0.57* −0.03 0.41* 0.50* 0.74* 0.58* 0.44* 0.72* 0.45* 0.75*
6 maladaptive dialogues 0.14 0.12 0.32* 0.19 0.34* −0.01 0.18* 0.09 0.34* 0.56* 0.28* 0.09 0.38*
7 Social dialogues 0.62* 0.09 0.27 0.56* 0.52* 0.17 0.62* 0.50* 0.51* 0.30* 0.42* 0.39* 0.65*
8 Supportive dialogues 0.48* 0.29* 0.40* 0.49* 0.65* 0.33* 0.64* 0.61* 0.68* 0.51* 0.56* 0.45* 0.80*
9 Spontaneous dialogues 0.45* 0.34* 0.42* 0.56* 0.65* 0.27 0.57* 0.64* 0.62* 0.55* 0.76* 0.59* 0.84*
10 Ruminative dialogues 0.50* 0.14 0.53* 0.42* 0.55* 0.51* 0.50* 0.64* 0.57* 0.64* 0.67* 0.49* 0.85*
11 Confronting dialogues 0.27 0.28 0.40* 0.31* 0.51* 0.57* 0.32* 0.60* 0.53* 0.62* 0.71* 0.36* 0.78*
12 Change of perspective 0.54* 0.36* 0.42* 0.60* 0.68* 0.41* 0.64* 0.66* 0.70* 0.70* 0.62* 0.49* 0.87*
13 STS Total 0.79* 0.71* 0.81* 0.81* 0.51* 0.30 0.47* 0.53* 0.56* 0.50* 0.41* 0.60* 0.56*
14 IDAS-R Tot 0.56* 0.32* 0.50* 0.60* 0.80* 0.57* 0.71* 0.84* 0.80* 0.82* 0.78* 0.87* 0.62*
United States sample: n = 119; Polish sample: n = 181; *p < 0.001.
0.29 and 0.62. Moreover, the patterns of relationships in both complex and advanced way. This analysis allows us to find
samples were similar. Total STS and IDAS-R scores correlated features that are important for explaining the covariation
0.56 in the Polish sample and 0.62 in the United States sample. between the subscales of the STS and IDAS-R. We conducted
On the one hand, these results show moderate, positive the analysis on the combined samples with each participant
relationships between several self-talk functions and types represented by their scores on the four STS and the eight
of internal dialogues. On the other hand, there is evidence IDAS-R subscales. Because of the potential negative effects of
of possible independence of these kinds of intrapersonal outliers on CCA, we first eliminated respondents who scored
communication. For our next set of analyses, we sought to three standard deviations above or below the mean on the total
determine the extent of independence of STS and IDAS- score of either measure. This resulted in a new sample size
R subscales. We used both canonical correlational and of 293 (180 women, ages 18–34). The results of this analysis
exploratory factor analysis with the combined samples to showed three significant canonical correlations: 0.64, 0.43, and
address this question. 0.33 (all p < 0.001), explaining, respectively, 41%, 19%, and
To answer the question of overlap between the two measures 11% of the variance (see Table 3). The first canonical variable
of intrapersonal communication, we first used canonical represented over half of the variance from the original set of
correlational analysis, which permitted us to explore mutual variables and explained about 25% of the variance from the
relationships between STS and IDAS-R subscales in a more opposite set of variables.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 227Oleś et al. Inner Dialogues and Self-Talk
TABLE 3 | Canonical correlations between the IDAS-R and STS. TABLE 4 | Results of EFA: loadings for four-factor solution.
Methods and scales Canonical variables Scale/Variable Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV
1 2 3 Social dialogues 0.79 0.32 −0.06 −0.23
Supportive dialogues 0.78 0.23 0.22 0.04
IDAS-R Identity dialogues −0.68 −0.40 −0.04 Identity dialogues 0.74 0.05 0.08 0.49
Maladaptive dialogues −0.21 0.30 −0.53 Spontaneous dialogues 0.71 0.26 0.15 0.44
Social dialogues −0.57 0.13 0.67 Change of perspective 0.66 0.24 0.38 0.41
Supportive dialogues −0.67 −0.06 0.27 Ruminative dialogues 0.64 0.33 0.50 0.06
Spontaneous dialogues −0.90 −0.28 −0.10 Social assessment 0.40 0.82 −0.00 0.09
Ruminative dialogues −0.82 0.43 −0.11 Self-management 0.35 0.74 −0.02 0.34
Confronting dialogues −0.60 0.05 −0.32 Self-criticism 0.07 0.73 0.37 0.21
Change of perspective −0.91 −0.14 −0.10 Maladaptive dialogues 0.02 0.05 0.91 −0.03
% Var IDAS-R 49 7 12 Confronting dialogues 0.47 0.09 0.71 0.24
% Var STS 20 1 1 Self-reinforcement 0.05 0.34 0.06 0.81
CR 0.64 0.44 0.33
p< 0.001 0.001 0.001
CR2 0.41 0.19 0.11 aspects that are different from the types of internal dialogues.
STS Social assessment −0.84 0.09 0.45 Factor 3 (Disruptive Dialogicality) contained the maladaptive
Self-criticism −0.75 −0.43 −0.50 and confronting IDAS-R subscales. These types of inner
Self-reinforcement −0.54 0.62 −0.40 dialogues represent a kind of psychic burden caused or
Self-Management −0.90 −0.24 0.14
accompanied by unpleasant or tension producing dialogues.
% Var STS 59 16 16
Factor 4 (Self-Enhancing Self-Talk) included only the Self-
% Var IDAS 25 3 2
Reinforcement STS subscale.
Summing up, both CCA and EFA showed some overlap
between self-talk and inner dialogical activity. However, the
Interestingly, all loadings were negative, with lack of self- results are not strong enough to identify these two modes of
talk functions (see canonical loadings) corresponding to reduced intrapersonal communication as variable aspects of the same
inner dialogues of all kinds. However, according to the reversed phenomena. Instead, they seem to be complementary types of
loadings, this variable represented the presence of four self- intrapersonal communication that serve different functions.
talk functions, namely, self-management, social assessment,
self-criticism, and, to a lesser degree, self-reinforcement, and
almost all types of inner dialogues. This variable can be labeled DISCUSSION
“dialogical self-talk.” The second and third canonical variables
represented only a small amount of residual variance from the This purpose of this study was to examine the similarities
original variables (both 16%) and explained very little of the between two kinds of intrapersonal communication using two
residual variance (3% and 2%) from the opposite set of variables. recent multidimensional measures of inner dialogue and self-
In order to examine similarities of both kinds of intrapersonal talk. As we expected, there were moderate to strong relationships
communication, we also used exploratory factor analysis, among the total and subscale scores of the IDAS-R and STS.
principal components with Varimax rotation, and the Scree test These results suggest that internal dialogical activity shares a
for factor extraction. The 12 subscales (four STS, eight IDAS-R) good deal of variance with common self-talk functions. In other
served as the variables in this analysis. We identified a four-factor words, there is a significant self-talk component to internal
solution, according to the Scree test. The four extracted factors dialogues. Although Brinthaupt et al. (2009) developed the
explained 79% of the variance (for loadings see Table 4). STS independently of Dialogical Self Theory, the self-regulatory
The factors explained 49.3%, 11.7%, 8.9%, and 7.2% of functions identified by their measure provide some conceptual
the variance, respectively. Factor 1 (Internal Dialogicality) and theoretical support for that theory.
represented the different kinds of IDAS-R inner dialogues except Both the zero-order correlational data as well as the canonical
for maladaptive and confronting dialogues. This factor explained correlations showed significant relationships between the self-
almost half of the variance in the data, with six of the 12 subscales talk functions and the types of inner dialogues. The results
having relatively high loadings on it. Regarding the content of this generally showed STS and IDAS-R overlap of between 30% and
factor, the IDAS-R subscales related to contact and union with the 40%. The common variance of the subscales of STS and IDAS-R,
self ’s and others’ inner dialogues, representing the adaptive side according to the canonical correlation analysis, was about 41%.
of inner dialogues. Interestingly, the STS functions did not load Such results show that self-talk functions and inner dialogue types
strongly on this factor. are, on the one hand, clearly related variables.
Factor 2 (Self-Regulatory Self-Talk) contained three STS On the other hand, there are elements of each kind of
subscales/functions: Social Assessment, Self-Management, and intrapersonal communication mode that are different. For
Self-Criticism. These subscales seem to represent self-talk example, the STS functions appear to represent dynamic aspects
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 227Oleś et al. Inner Dialogues and Self-Talk
of intrapersonal communication, involving active processing of reflection. As others (e.g., Beck, 1976) have noted, not all
current or recent situations and compensation for behavioral intrapersonal communication is conscious, and the present
challenges and cognitive disruptions (see Brinthaupt, 2019, measures are limited to those situations and experiences that
this Research Topic). Alternatively, different types of inner respondents are able to recall or infer based on other information.
dialogical activity seem to represent contemplative aspects of In addition, the list of functions and types of self-talk and internal
intrapersonal communication, such as reflecting about oneself dialogues tapped by the STS and IDAS-R is not exhaustive.
or deliberating about different facets of one’s identity. The For example, the STS does not measure the frequency of self-
types of inner dialogues illustrate qualities of awareness of distancing and adaptive coping that have been shown to be
human consciousness: representations of others in one’s mind, implicit functions of third-person self-talk (Kross et al., 2014)
overcoming of loneliness, keeping bonds with significant others, or the generic “you” that is used for general meaning making
fighting for autonomy, and controlling of a social mirror to help “people ‘normalize’ negative experiences by extending
(e.g., Puchalska-Wasyl et al., 2008; Rowan, 2011; Stemplewska- them beyond the self ” (Orvell et al., 2017, p. 1299). There may
Żakowicz et al., 2012; Valsiner and Cabell, 2012). be additional cognitive, motivational, or emotional functions not
Research on self-esteem suggests that inner dialogues and tapped by the STS and IDAS-R (e.g., Alderson-Day et al., 2018;
self-talk serve possibly different roles. Oleś et al. (2010) found Latinjak et al., 2019).
that total and subscale IDAS scores correlated negatively and We believe that methodological artifacts are unlikely to
significantly with self-esteem. However, Brinthaupt et al. (2009) explain the results. The factor analysis loadings do not reflect
found that self-esteem did not correlate significantly with solely positive and negative valenced items from the measures.
total and subscale STS scores (except for self-critical self- For example, ruminative dialogues appeared within Factor 1, and
talk). Both studies measured self-esteem with the same tool, self-critical self-talk appeared in Factor 2. The results appear to
Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, but collected data from different map more closely to the overall frequency of use of each kind of
populations/countries (Poland and the United States). intrapersonal communication, with the three least frequent facets
In the present study, there was evidence for more frequent (maladaptive and confronting dialogues and self-reinforcing self-
intrapersonal communication activity in the United States talk) emerging as separate, minor factors. In addition, both scales
sample, especially with respect to the self-talk functions. It is used the same response format, which should reduce response
not clear whether these results reflect cultural or age differences artifacts. However, the STS uses a specific instructional prompt
between the two samples. The American students were a few (“I talk to myself when. . .” certain situations occur), With the
years younger than the Polish participants. It is conceivable IDAS-R, participants rate statements related to self- and other-
that younger people might engage in more intrapersonal related dialogical thinking situations. Thus, there is a distinction
communication (both IDAS-R and STS) than older people. If between when one talks to oneself (STS) and how one talks
younger adults experience the uncertainty of adult life (Hermans to oneself (IDAS-R). Future research is needed for a careful
and Hermans-Konopka, 2010) and engage more frequently and systematic examination of the item content and construct
in identity construction processes during late adolescent and indicators of the STS and IDAS-R.
emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000; Hermans and Dimaggio, Because the STS and IDAS-R have semantically overlapping
2007), then we would expect increases in reports of inner item content, it is important to examine the predictive value
dialogues and self-talk. of each scale with external criteria. Although we have yet to
Cultural differences between the United States and Polish examine external criteria that might address the differentiation
samples might also account for the differences in reported of self-talk and inner dialogues, there is some evidence that
frequency of self-talk and inner dialogues. Research shows internal dialogues are more strongly related to self-esteem than
that higher identity integration is associated with less frequent is self-talk (Brinthaupt et al., 2009; Oleś et al., 2010), suggesting
internal dialogical activity measured by the IDAS (Oleś, 2011) potential differences in the functions served by these two kinds on
and that higher self-concept clarity integration is associated with intrapersonal communication. Studying the operation of internal
less frequent internal dialogical activity (Oleś et al., 2010). If dialogues and self-talk in specific self-regulatory contexts (e.g.,
the two samples differed in their identity or self-concept clarity novel or stressful situations) could provide additional insight into
(something that could be associated with the age differences), this the predictive value and overlap of the measures.
might account for the frequency differences we observed on the Future research will need to continue examining the structure
STS and IDAS-R. Thus, exploring age and cultural differences in and properties of the STS and IDAS-R. One possible direction
intrapersonal communication appears to be a fruitful avenue for is to examine situation-specific intrapersonal behavior. For
future research. example, within specific contexts or situations (e.g., coping with
stress, arriving at a decision, or construing personal identity),
there may be specific behavioral signatures (Mischel and Shoda,
Limitations and Implications for Future 1995) containing different combinations of internal dialogue or
Research self-talk types. As the contributions to this Research Topic show,
We operationalized aspects of intrapersonal communication there are other kinds of intrapersonal communication beyond
using two self-report measures. As such, this study’s data internal dialogues and self-talk. Exploring the relationships
refer mainly to aspects of internal dialogue and self-talk that among the varieties of intrapersonal communication would also
respondents are consciously aware of or can access upon be a worthy goal for future research.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 227Oleś et al. Inner Dialogues and Self-Talk
CONCLUSION Middle Tennessee State University, United States. This study
spanned over two countries. The patients/participants provided
We have shown that the relationship between inner dialogue their written informed consent to participate in this study
and self-talk is interesting and complex and that the study when it was required by the national legislation and the
of this relationship is a theoretically valuable research goal. institutional requirements.
There are several additional modes, categories, and functions
served by, or relevant to, intrapersonal communication
(e.g., Heavey and Hurlburt, 2008). Researchers might find AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
it profitable to utilize the IDAS-R and the STS to explore
further the overlap between, and distinctions among, PO conceptualized the research, led the empirical research in
these phenomena. Poland, and revised and wrote the first version of manuscript.
TB prepared the idea of research, led the empirical research
in United States, finally edited, revised, and corrected the first
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT version of manuscript. RD conducted the empirical research in
the United States and prepared the database. DP, conducted
The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the empirical research in Poland, prepared the database, and
the corresponding author. performed computations.
ETHICS STATEMENT FUNDING
The studies involving human participants were reviewed Publication of this article was supported by The John Paul II
and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), Catholic University of Lublin, Poland.
REFERENCES I. Montero (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 236–246. doi: 10.1017/
CBO9780511581533.019
Alderson-Day, B., Mitrenga, K., Wilkinson, S., McCarthy-Jones, S., and Diaz, R. M., and Berk, L. E. (eds). (1992). Private Speech: From Social Interaction to
Fernyhough, C. (2018). The varieties of inner speech questionnaire– Self-Regulation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
revised (VISQ-R): replicating and refining links between inner speech and Duncan, R. M., and Cheyne, J. A. (1999). Incidence and functions of self-reported
psychopathology. Conscious. Cogn. 65, 48–58. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2018. private speech in young adults: a self-verbalization questionnaire. Can. J. Behav.
07.001 Sci. 31, 133–136. doi: 10.1037/h0087081
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late Fernyhough, C. (2009). “Dialogic thinking,” in Private Speech, Executive
teens through the twenties. Am. Psychol. 55, 469–480. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X. Functioning, and the Development of Verbal Self-Regulation, eds A. Winsler,
55.5.469 C. Fernyhough, and I. Montero (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),
Bakhtin, M. (1973). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, 2nd Edn. Ann Arbor, MI: 42–52.
Ardis. Fernyhough, C. (2016). The Voices Within: The History and Science of How we Talk
Batory, A. M. (2010). Dialogicality and the construction of identity. Int. J. Dial. Sci. to Ourselves. New York, NY: Basic Books.
4, 45–66. Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: a critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychol.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York, NY: Sport Exerc. 7, 81–97. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.04.002
New American Library. Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Galanis, E., and Theodorakis, Y. (2011). Self-
Bhatia, S. (2002). Acculturation dialogical voices and the construction of the talk and sports performance: a meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 348–356.
diasporic self. Theory Psychol. 12, 55–77. doi: 10.1177/0959354302121004 doi: 10.1177/1745691611413136
Brinthaupt, T. M. (2019). Individual differences in self-talk frequency: social Heavey, C. L., and Hurlburt, R. T. (2008). The phenomena of inner experience.
isolation and cognitive disruption. Front. Psychol. Cogn. Sci. 10:1088. doi: 10. Conscious. Cogn. 17, 798–810. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.12.006
3389/fpsyg.2019.01088 Hermans, H. J. M. (1996). Voicing the self: from information processing to
Brinthaupt, T. M., Benson, S., Kang, M., and Moore, Z. (2015). Assessing the dialogical interchange. Psychol. Bull. 119, 31–50. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.
accuracy of self-reported self-talk. Front. Psychol. Cogn. Sci. 6:570. doi: 10.3389/ 1.31
fpsyg.2015.00570 Hermans, H. J. M. (2003). The construction and reconstruction of a dialogical self.
Brinthaupt, T. M., and Dove, C. T. (2012). Differences in self-talk frequency as a J. Constr. Psychol. 16, 89–130. doi: 10.1080/10720530390117902
function of age, only-child, and imaginary childhood companion status. J. Res. Hermans, H. J. M., and Dimaggio, G. (2007). Self, identity, and globalization in
Pers. 46, 326–333. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.003 times of uncertainty: a dialogical analysis. Rev. Gen.Psychol. 11, 31–61. doi:
Brinthaupt, T. M., Hein, M. B., and Kramer, T. E. (2009). The self-talk scale: 10.1037/1089-2680.11.1.31
development, factor analysis, and validation. J. Pers. Assess. 91, 82–92. doi: Hermans, H. J. M., and Gieser, T. (2012). Handbook on the Dialogical Self.
10.1080/00223890802484498 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinthaupt, T. M., and Kang, M. (2014). Many-faceted rasch calibration: an Hermans, H. J. M., and Hermans-Konopka, A. (2010). Dialogical Self Theory.
example using the self-talk scale. Assessment 21, 157–165. doi: 10.1177/ Positioning and Counter-Positioning in a Globalizing Society. Cambridge:
1073191112446653 Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. Hermans, H. J. M., and Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The Dialogical Self. Meaning as
New York,NY: Cambridge University Press. Movement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Deniz, C. (2009). “Early childhood teachers’ awareness, beliefs, and practices Kendall, P. C., Howard, B. L., and Hays, R. C. (1989). Self-referent speech and
toward children’s private speech,” in Private Speech, Executive Functioning, and psychopathology:the balance of positive and negative thinking. Cogn. Ther. Res.
the Development of Verbal Self-Regulation, eds A. Winsler, C. Fernyhough, and 13, 583–598. doi: 10.1007/BF01176069
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 227Oleś et al. Inner Dialogues and Self-Talk Kross, E., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Park, J., Burson, A., Dougherty, A., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Ayduk, Ö, Moser, J. S., Gelman, S. A., and Kross, E. (2019). Linguistic et al. (2014). Self-talk as a regulatory mechanism: how you do it matters. J. Pers. shifts: a relatively effortless route to emotion regulation? Curr. Direct. Psychol. Soc. Psychol. 106, 304–324. doi: 10.1037/a0035173 Sci. 28, 567–573. doi: 10.1177/0963721419861411 Kross, E., Vickers, B. D., Orvell, A., Gainsburg, I., Moran, T. P., Boyer, M., et al. Orvell, A., Kross, E., and Gelman, S. A. (2017). How “you” makes meaning. Science (2017). Third-person self-talk reduces Ebola worry and risk perception by 355, 1299–1302. doi: 10.1126/science.aaj2014 enhancing rational thinking. Health Well Being 9, 387–409. doi: 10.1111/aphw. Pickering, M. J., and Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language 12103 production and comprehension. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 329–347. doi: 10.1017/ Langland-Hassan, P., and Vicente, A. (eds). (2018). Inner Speech: New Voices. S0140525X12001495 Oxford: Oxford University Press. Puchalska-Wasyl, M. (2010). Dialogue, monologue and change of perspective – Latinjak, A. T., Torregrossa, M., Comoutos, N., Hernando-Gimeno, C., and three formsof dialogicality. Int. J. Dial. Sci. 4, 67–79. Ramis, Y. (2019). Goal-directed self-talk used to self-regulate in male basketball Puchalska-Wasyl, M. (2011). “Internal dialogical activity: types and personality competitions. J. Sports Sci. 37, 1429–1433. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1561967 correlates,” in Jungian and Dialogical Self Perspectives, eds R. A. Jones, and Łysiak, M. (2019). Inner dialogical communication and pathological personality M. Morioka (New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan), 100–116. doi: 10.1057/ traits. Front. Psychol. 10:1663. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01663 9780230307490_7 MacKay, D. G. (1992). “Constraints on theories of inner speech,” in Auditory Puchalska-Wasyl, M. (2016). The functions of internal dialogs and their Imagery, ed. D. Reisberg (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), connection with personality. Scand. J. Psychol. 57, 162–168. doi: 10.1111/sjop. 121–149. 12275 Markova, I. (2005). Dialogicality and Social Representations. Cambridge: Puchalska-Wasyl, M., Chmielnicka-Kuter, E., and Oleś, P. K. (2008). Cambridge University Press. From internal interlocutorsto psychological functions of dialogical McCarthy-Jones, S., and Fernyhough, C. (2011). The varieties of inner speech: activity. J. Construct. Psychol. 21, 239–269. doi: 10.1080/1072053080207 Links between quality of inner speech and psychopathological variables in a 1476 sample of young adults. Conscious. Cogn. 20, 1586–1593. doi: 10.1016/j.concog. Puchalska-Wasyl, M., Oleś, P. K., and Hermans, H. J. M. (eds). (2018). 2011.08.005 Dialogical Self: Inspirations, Considerations and Research. Lublin: Towarzystwo Mischel, W., Cantor, N., and Feldman, S. (1996). “Principles of self-regulation: the Naukowe KUL. nature of willpower and self-control,” in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Raggatt, P. T. F. (2012). “Positioning in the dialogical self: recent advances in Principles, eds E. T. Higgins, and A. W. Kruglanski (New York, NY: Guilford theory construction,” in Handbook on the Dialogical Self, eds H. J. M. Hermans, Press), 329–360. and T. Gieser (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 29–45. doi: 10.1017/ Mischel, W., and Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of cbo9781139030434.004 personality: reconceptualizing the invariances in personality and the role of Rowan, J. (2011). “Dialogical self and the soul,” in Jungian and Dialogical Self situations. Psychol. Rev. 102, 246–286. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246 Perspectives, eds R. A. Jones, and M. Morioka (New York, NY: Palgrave Morin, A. (2018). “The self-reflective functions of inner speech: thirteen years later,” McMillan), 152–166. doi: 10.1057/9780230307490_10 in Inner Speech: New Voices, eds P. Langland-Hassan, and A. Vicente (Oxford: Schwartz, R. M., and Garamoni, G. L. (1989). Cognitive balance and Oxford University Press), 276–298. psychopathology: evaluation of an information processing model of positive Morin, A., Duhnych, C., and Racy, F. (2018). Self−reported inner speech use in and negative states of mind. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 9, 271–294. doi: 10.1016/0272- university students. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 32, 376–382. doi: 10.1002/acp.3404 7358(89)90058-5 Moser, J. S., Dougherty, A., Mattson, W. I., Katz, B., Moran, T. P., Guevarra, Stemplewska-Żakowicz, K., Zalewski, B., Suszek, H., and Kobylińska, D. (2012). D., et al. (2017). Third-person self-talk facilitates emotion regulation without “Cognitive architecture of the dialogical self: an experimental approach,” engaging cognitive control: converging evidence from ERP and fMRI. Sci. Rep. in Handbook on the Dialogical Self, eds H. J. M. Hermans, and T. 7:4519. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04047-3 Gieser (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 264–283. doi: 10.1017/ Nir, D. (2012). “Voicing inner conflict: from a dialogical to a negotiational cbo9781139030434.019 self,” in Handbook on the Dialogical Self, eds H. J. M. Hermans, and T. Valsiner, J., and Cabell, K. R. (2012). “Self-making through synthesis: extending Gieser (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 284–300. doi: 10.1017/ dialogical self theory,” in Handbook on the Dialogical Self, eds H. J. M. cbo9781139030434.020 Hermans, and T. Gieser (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), Oleś, P. K. (2009). Czy głosy umysłu da si˛e mierzyć? Skala wewn˛etrznej aktywności 241–297. dialogowej (SWAD) [Are voices of the mind measurable? Internal dialogical Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. activity scale (IDAS)]. Prz. Psychol. 52, 37–50. White, R. E., Kross, E., and Duckworth, A. L. (2015). Spontaneous self-distancing Oleś, P. K. (2011). “Dialogowe ja: zarysteorii, inspiracjebadawcze, ciekawszewyniki and adaptive self-reflection across adolescence. Child Dev. 86, 1272–1281. doi: [Dialogical self: Outline of the theory, research inspirations, and challenging 10.1111/cdev.12370 results],” in Dialog z Samym Soba̧, eds P. K. Oleś, M. Puchalska-Wasyl, and E. Brygoła (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN), 143–171. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the Oleś, P. K., Batory, A., Buszek, M., Chora̧ży, K., Dras, J., Jankowski, T., et al. (2010). absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a Wewn˛etrzna aktywność dialogowa i jej psychologiczne korelaty [Internal potential conflict of interest. dialogical activity and its psychological correlates]. Czas. Psychol. 16, 113–127. Oleś, P. K., and Hermans, H. J. M. (eds). (2005). The Dialogical Self: Theory and Copyright © 2020 Oleś, Brinthaupt, Dier and Polak. This is an open-access article Research. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). Oleś, P. K., and Puchalska-Wasyl, M. (2012). “Dialogicality and personality The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the traits,” in Handbook on the Dialogical Self, eds H. J. M. Hermans, and original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original T. Gieser (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 241–252. doi: 10.1017/ publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No cbo9781139030434.017 use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 227
You can also read
